Human Devolution? Interesting Article...

by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  Just who does your "us" stand for, NC? . . . Chariklo

  Oh shit not again.

  An atheistic world view has an intimate relationship with science, evidence and facts Charliko . . . that's a given.

  A lot of folks have shared some fascinating information and opinions (and I unashamedly include myself in that "us"), complete with quotes and links to articles, and they've just been glossed over or ignored in favour of this entrenched polarisation that you seem intent on reinforcing.

  Why can't we just slow down and take in ALL that is being presented OBJECTIVELY and drop all this them v us bullshit . . . please!
• 

  AGuest

  anybody who has an evidence-based worldview

  Except if such evidence suggests/shows/proves that world's brains are mutating to be less intelligent, right? Man, you confuse the heck outta me...

  A slave of Christ,

  SA

  Edited to add: Sorry, dear Size; not trying to make an us and them scenario... but to understand why there IS an us and them scenario here. Peace!
• 

  Chariklo

  That's a very odd remark, Size!

  I seem intent on enforcing a polarisation because I merely asked for clarification?

  That seems to me to be a question entirely in accordance with the principle of evidence and facts. What prompted you to make that remark, please?

  "A lof of folks have shared some fascinating evidence." Isn't that great! :) presumably you're only too happy to share that?

  Please note, I haven't even expressed an opinion on the thread's title here; I've merely asked two polite questions. Not sure I can stay up much longer though in the hope of nice clear logical answers.
• 

  NewChapter

  Except if such evidence suggests/shows/proves that world's brains are mutating to be less intelligent, right? Man, you confuse the heck outta me...

  It's just one piece of a very complicated puzzle. It must get ripped apart in order to get stronger. Remember, it is not the data we are arguing, or even the evidence, but the application of those that we are looking at. In fact, I think the terms data or findings might be better than evidence in this context. Otherwise, it could get confusing.

  So let me take another real world example as I try to explain how we are not denying data, but questioning conclusions:

  You work in public housing. I think I'm probably correct in saying that most in public housing do not have college degrees. Not all, of course, but most. Now I could look at that and say, see public housing and other social programs makes people dumb and makes them lack initiative. Certainly, some do make that conclusion. But is it correct? The data doesn't change, but we are looking for causation. Is it the public housing, or is public housing simply a symptom of a much bigger cause? I think the latter is correct, but to go into those causes here would take us way off topic.

  We are not denying the findings, although we would like to see some collaberation. So we are withholding on that. We are not denying any conclusions, but we are offering other possible conclusions. And only by looking at ALL of the possiblities will we have better answers.

  Char: Regarding the us and them comment. It seems everyone here is being pretty respectful and trying to understand each other. Can you set it aside for a while?
• 

  cofty

  Shelby - the only person who dismissed the OP was Sab. The rest of us simply asked some intelligent questions to investigate it further.

  We also pointed out where you were being unscientific by talking about devolution and you got all huffy. Business as usual.

  Put the persecution card away its really boring.
• 

  sizemik

  Just who does your "us" stand for, NC?

  I seem intent on enforcing a polarisation because I merely asked for clarification?

  It was your opening word "Just" and the use of inverted commas . . .

  If I've misjudged your question, I apologise.

  But also in my response . . . you will find the answer to your question.
• 

  Chariklo

  New Chapter, it's just that you wrote

  if you wanna play with us

  I thought, when I saw that, that it was a markedly "us and them" comment, as you put it; iI was a little surpriised and asked, in the nicest possible way, for clarification. Why be so defensive about it?

  It seems everyone here is being pretty respectful and trying to understand each other.

  Lovely!

  Can you set it aside for a while?

  Would you like to clarify what your "it" refers to, please, New Chapter? I'm just trying to understand you.
• 

  Chariklo

  It was your opening word "Just" and the use of inverted commas . . .

  It's common parlance in the UK, size, to use an opening word"just" as a synonym for "exactly", thus completely in the spirit of my quest for clarification.

  If I've misjudged your question, I apologise.

  No need to apologise, size.

  But also in my response . . . you will find the answer to your question.

  Would that answer be in the "lot of folks" or in the very peculiar

  and they've just been glossed over or ignored in favour of this entrenched polarisation that you seem intent on reinforcing.

  Why can't we just slow down and take in ALL that is being presented OBJECTIVELY and drop all this them v us bullshit . . . please!

  ? Seems very perplexing....
• 

  sabastious

  I am actually encouraged by the study, if it's accurate. It helps explain some of what was previously to me, inexplicable. We can't help it. I get that. And I'm not being sarcastic. I am very glad to know that there may be valid reason... because that puts us on a path to find a solution.

  I don't like the conclusion because it messes with free will in my opinion. Under the terms of the OP we are essentially evolutionary robots doomed for destruction. There is a common sales pitch that is refered to as the "doomsday scenario" and it can be used to sell anything. "You should stop using pens of blue ink because they are linked to cancer" BOOM black pen sales skyrocket and even unconventional colors feel the shockwave! The same could be said for the various religious hells, armageddon themes and whatnot. It's disappointing that Science seems to have only doomsday scenarios and then offer themselves as the solution (with a margin of error built it of course!). It's like in Back to the Future at the end where Marty asks rhetorically, "What do we always have to cut these things so god-damn close?" It's a funny question because from the grand evolutionary perspective we really do always pull through in the end. That sholud be the human motto, we always pull through. We have bitter, tragic and unspeakable sacrifice, yes, but ultimately we pull through. It's been a human tenent preached and taught for all of antiquity. It's called the human spirit. Saying that we are essentially a botched brain program would really make one question the validity of free will. It seems to be furthering a preconcieved theme is what I am trying to say. Like when the Watchtower translated their NWT. They work with the original content but they strategically translate as to paint a preconcieved narrative that supports fabricated doctrine. I see it as a hopeless type of "fact" that should be highly examined and critically dismantled simply because it's just bad news. "We're broke" just doesn't cut it for me. That's depressive thinking in my opinion which is what I strive to flee from.

  -Sab
• 

  Chariklo

  Just noticed this.

  I think I'm probably correct in saying that most in public housing do not have college degrees. Not all, of course, but most.

  Wow, that would be very politically incorrect if you were in the UK, because it is fortunately not the case at all in this country. Can it possibly be so in the US? I thought the USA was the country where the American Dream held sway, and I thought the American Dream meant that anyone can do anything, no matter how poor. Am I wrong there? Please tell me! Our public housing is rather good, by the way. Room for improvement, but not bad at all.

  Good job that in the UK and most of Europe we have equal opportunities for all.

  Still, back to your evidence-based discussions...don't let me disturb you....